Where have all the anti-vaxxers gone?

[lazybloke]

Well aware that getting the jab now is very different to March/April this year. But when your job has already gone, what point is there in pointing out the current situation?

Because they could get jabbed now and apply for another job?
I'm beginning to think you're talking about an anti-vaxxer.


A person needing covid jabs to do their care job should have been in cohort 2.
If by some accident they were excluded, they could have worked with their employer, GP or local authority to correct the problem.

If they failed to do that, even at threat of losing their job, then the subsequent sacking would appear to be self-inflicted and avoidable.

 

[DCBassman]

Anyone who is medically exempt from vaccination will likely have problems that mean they shouldn't be near patients in any case.
Barring the exempt, it's a bit like military personnel suddenly deciding not to go to war when required.
If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined....

 

[classic33]

Because they could get jabbed now and apply for another job?
I'm beginning to think you're talking about an anti-vaxxer.


A person needing covid jabs to do their care job should have been in cohort 2.
If by some accident they were excluded, they could have worked with their employer, GP or local authority to correct the problem.

If they failed to do that, even at threat of losing their job, then the subsequent sacking would appear to be self-inflicted and avoidable.

They were given the choice, get their two jabs in March/April this year or goodbye.

Remind me, what was the time period between the first and second jabs at that time. I don't think it would have been possible to have both in that time period.

Upshot was the agency employing them let them go. How do you stop that happening with other agency workers, if they're waiting for their third?

 

[Alex321]

They were given the choice, get their two jabs in March/April this year or goodbye.

Remind me, what was the time period between the first and second jabs at that time. I don't think it would have been possible to have both in that time period.

I don't believe that happened at all.

I do not think anybody was told out of the blue that they now had to get both jabs within a time period which would not allow them to do so.

There will have been people who didn't get the first jab when they could have done, who for some reason did not believe it would apply to them and who would then be caught in that type of situation, but that was due to them not facing up to the reality that they would need to be jabbed.

Upshot was the agency employing them let them go. How do you stop that happening with other agency workers, if they're waiting for their third?

You can't. But that would be very short sighted of the agency, given the extreme shortage of available staff. They would walk into another job after getting the booster, if they wanted to.

 

[IanSmithCSE]

Good morning,

I was directly involved in a very similar issue many years ago.....

If a person already in a permanent position is willing to fulfil new requirements of the job - and this happens all the time in the caring professions - which involve vaccination against a 'new' disease, but is unable to do so for genuine clinical reasons, then it is incumbent on their employer to find them a suitable alternative position and/or manage the employee's condition in such a way that safety for both employee and patient is maintained.
......

Thanks, that is a very clear and easy to understand statement of the position.

I have always worked as a self employed person, or as a director or employee of small/start up businesses and this will no doubt have affected my world view.

I genuinely do not understand why genuine clinical reasons should be treated differently to I don't want to.

That I am confused by why you consider them different is quite possibly as odd to you as it is odd to me that you do.

Bye

Ian

 

[Alex321]

Good morning,

Thanks, that is a very clear and easy to understand statement of the position.

I have always worked as a self employed person, or as a director or employee of small/start up businesses and this will no doubt have affected my world view.

I genuinely do not understand why genuine clinical reasons should be treated differently to I don't want to.

They should be treated differently in the response of the employer.

In the first case, the employer should take whatever steps they can to continue employing the person in a role which does not bring them into such close contact with vulnerable people. Or if absolutely necessary, allow them to continue if sufficient additional mitigation measures can be implemented.

In the second case, the employer has no such responsibility, and can basically just sack the employee.

 

[classic33]

I don't believe that happened at all.

I do not think anybody was told out of the blue that they now had to get both jabs within a time period which would not allow them to do so.

There will have been people who didn't get the first jab when they could have done, who for some reason did not believe it would apply to them and who would then be caught in that type of situation, but that was due to them not facing up to the reality that they would need to be jabbed.


You can't. But that would be very short sighted of the agency, given the extreme shortage of available staff. They would walk into another job after getting the booster, if they wanted to.

You can believe what you want.

 

[KnittyNorah]

I genuinely do not understand why genuine clinical reasons should be treated differently to I don't want to.

Lets put the genuine clinical reasons and I don't want to into a different situation.

If someone is born with no legs, or loses them or the use of them after an accident or illness, they will be provided with, at the very least, a power or self-propelled wheelchair by the NHS or similar funding body.
If someone merely doesn't want to walk - is too bone idle to do so - should they, too, be provided with a power wheelchair free of charge?

A person who has an epileptic seizure is banned from driving forthwith until certain tests have been carried out and a certain period of time (months or years rather than weeks) has elapsed since the last seizure. They are able to obtain a disabled person's bus pass during this time, and access all the local bus services within their UK country of residence, free of charge. Should someone who is banned from driving by reason of judicial disqualification be granted a free bus pass, too? Their driving ban is just as onerous and inconvenient as that of the person who has a mysterious epileptic seizure, so why should they not be treated in the same way by TPTB?

 

[Alex321]

You can believe what you want.

Of course.

So can you.

I have seen no evidence to support your suggestion that people were told with no advance knowledge, that they would have to get both injections within a period where that would not be possible.

 

[lazybloke]

They were given the choice, get their two jabs in March/April this year or goodbye.

Remind me, what was the time period between the first and second jabs at that time. I don't think it would have been possible to have both in that time period.

Upshot was the agency employing them let them go. How do you stop that happening with other agency workers, if they're waiting for their third?

Sorry Classic33, but I was in cohort 9 and fully vaccinated in May, so a cohort 2 carer should have had ample time to be vaccinated in April.

This looks increasingly like an antivaxxer being unwilling to accept responsibility for the consequences of refusing jabs.
Agency workers have always had few rights (for example it's not possible for the self-employed to be unfairly dismissed) , so perhaps such people need not to rock the boat?

Their way back into work is to have both jabs at the earliest opportunity; they will then be employable again - although I should think many employers would be extremely wary. That's another consequence they should have considered.

And when they do become eligble for a booster 6 months later, maybe act promptly? Otherwise..

 

[classic33]

Sorry Classic33, but I was in cohort 9 and fully vaccinated in May, so a cohort 2 carer should have had ample time to be vaccinated in April.

This looks increasingly like an antivaxxer being unwilling to accept responsibility for the consequences of refusing jabs.
Agency workers have always had few rights (for example it's not possible for the self-employed to be unfairly dismissed) , so perhaps such people need not to rock the boat?

Their way back into work is to have both jabs at the earliest opportunity; they will then be employable again - although I should think many employers would be extremely wary. That's another consequence they should have considered.

And when they do become eligble for a booster 6 months later, maybe act promptly? Otherwise..

Remind me, in March this year, what was the gap between 1st & 2nd jabs.

Both by May would have been outside the time limit set. Which is why I said manipulate the system.

I was in CEV group/cohort, with the first in mid March. June would have been the second one, if the gap between 1st & 2nd was what I thought it was. Twelve weeks, the same for them.

 

[Alex321]

Remind me, in March this year, what was the gap between 1st & 2nd jabs.

Both by May would have been outside the time limit set. Which is why I said manipulate the system.

I was in CEV group/cohort, with the first in mid March. June would have been the second one, if the gap between 1st & 2nd was what I thought it was. Twelve weeks, the same for them.

I think you are wrong about that. The standard gap at that time was 11 weeks, and it could be done as little as 8 weeks after the first.

I had my first on 10th March, and my second on 26th May (11 weeks and 1 day between them). I'm expecting to be contacted for my booster in a couple of weeks. I think I was cohort 7 (age 62, no vulnerabilities or other priority such as health workers).

 

[lazybloke]

Remind me, in March this year, what was the gap between 1st & 2nd jabs.

Both by May would have been outside the time limit set. Which is why I said manipulate the system.

I was in CEV group/cohort, with the first in mid March. June would have been the second one, if the gap between 1st & 2nd was what I thought it was. Twelve weeks, the same for them.

Sorry, but we were discussing JCVI Group 2 carers being sacked because they were unjabbed.
I can only assume this was by choice, because vaccines were offered to that cohort from circa 11th January 2021, so 2nd jabs would have been from circa 5th April. Double-jabbed in April; that's within the timescale you suggested was impossible.

Not sure of the relevant of you being in the CEV cohort (Group 4) but it's interesting to see that this group were eligible from week starting 18th January. It suggests that you delayed a considerable TWO MONTHS before accepting your first jab.

One wonders why you waited so long, possibly some scepticism about new vaccines? I had my own concerns too, but the risk from the disease was far far higher than the real world risks such as the very rare clotting problem. Vaccination was the only logical conclusion, even though I'm in great health with no known underlying health conditions.

So who are these carers that lost their jobs; are they vaccinated now?

 

[classic33]

Sorry, but we were discussing JCVI Group 2 carers being sacked because they were unjabbed.
I can only assume this was by choice, because vaccines were offered to that cohort from circa 11th January 2021, so 2nd jabs would have been from circa 5th April. Double-jabbed in April; that's within the timescale you suggested was impossible.

Not sure of the relevant of you being in the CEV cohort (Group 4) but it's interesting to see that this group were eligible from week starting 18th January. It suggests that you delayed a considerable TWO MONTHS before accepting your first jab.

One wonders why you waited so long, possibly some scepticism about new vaccines? I had my own concerns too, but the risk from the disease was far far higher than the real world risks such as the very rare clotting problem. Vaccination was the only logical conclusion, even though I'm in great health with no known underlying health conditions.

So who are these carers that lost their jobs; are they vaccinated now?

My being in the CEV group was given as an example. I got the time, date and location sent to me repeatedly. The decision wasn't mine. If I was two months late, is it not fair to assume others were as well. Through no fault if theirs?

How one area performed, doesn't mean all were the same.

Two of those I know lost their jobs, one after 15 years the other after six, never went back into similar work. One now works in a shop, the other has a cleaning job in the local DWP offices.

 

[Punkawallah]

I’ve read these posts, and I t tickles me that people are so ready to group into ‘them’ and ‘us’. Not as bad as the NZ premier, who happily confirms their ‘two tier society’, but not exactly a beacon of tolerance.